Month: February 2022

Categories
Posts

A Study on Romans Chapter 9

Romans exegesis

Chapters 9-11 return to the theme of defending God’s steadfast faithfulness, described as “the righteousness of God” in the early chapters of Romans. The righteousness of God, that is, God’s covenant faithfulness has been revealed through the faithfulness of Jesus for all who believe (Romans 3:23). Turn back to Romans 3:1-8 and recall that there was a discussion there about God’s faithfulness. The question Paul rhetorically asks is, “What advantage did Israel have?” “What was the point of being a Jew?” “What was the value of circumcision?” Paul gives only one answer in Romans 3. One advantage was that Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God. Israel was given the will and word of God and they were to teach God’s will and word to the world. We mentioned in Romans 3 that Paul stops describing the advantages and purposes of Israel at that point but returns to that thought in Romans 9.

Paul’s Anguish (9:1-5)

After such a powerful conclusion of Christian hope and assurance in chapter 8, the ninth chapter can easily catch us off guard. Rather than announcing his personal joy because we are children of God awaiting the glory to be revealed in us, Paul shifts to great sorrow and unceasing anguish. Notice the emphasis Paul wants to impart in these words. Three times he says something as a testimony of his feelings. Paul says, “I am speaking the truth in Christ,” “I am not lying,” and “my conscience bears witness in the Holy Spirit.” Three times Paul says that he is not lying about the great pain he has when he thinks about his countrymen, the Jews. It is interesting to notice that Paul never states what exactly his great sorrow is over, but it is fairly easy to deduce. Israel’s rejection of Christ greatly pains Paul. Paul would do anything to save his kinsmen. Paul wishes that he could be the one cut off so that his people would not be cut off from these great blessings in Christ. Paul appears to be tormented because so many Jews are not saved.
Application: Do we have this kind of love for lost souls? Do we experience the same anguish when we think about how many people who live in this city are going to eternal punishment? Do we have great sorrow when we think about all the people in this county who are separated from Christ? Even more, are we moved to do something like Paul is moved to do? Are we so moved for the lost in our area that we wish we could be cut off if it would bring about the salvation of thousands or millions? Paul is declaring a powerful love for Israel to be saved. I think it is worth mentioning at this point that if in chapter 11 Paul teaches that every Jew is going to be saved, then why is Paul in so much anguish now for their souls? Clearly we will need to carefully consider how all Israel would be saved and reconcile it to Paul’s unceasing anguish for Israel

.
Verses 4-5 reveal that Israel had all the advantages and privileges for success. Israel had everything going for them and given to them. They had spectacular privileges and blessings. To Israel belonged adoption, the glory, the covenants, the Law of Moses, the worship and sacrifices, and the promises. They had everything. They had the patriarchs, like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and more. Finally, they had the Messiah, the anointed one, who came through their lineage, who is God over all. Israel had it all. Israel had everything promised to them. Blessings and privileges were within their reach. So what happened? This is the question of verse 6. Did the word of God fail? Did God not bless Israel? Did God not fulfill his promises and covenants to Israel?
Not All Who Descended From Israel Are Israel (9:6-13)
Paul establishes the answer for what happened. It is not that the word of God failed. That is not the answer at God. God has kept his promises. God has kept his covenant. God has offered the blessings and has fulfilled his word. God’s righteousness (his covenant faithfulness) has been revealed. Rather, the answer is that not all who descended from Israel are truly Israel. This must have been shocking words. Put yourselves in the mind of the person who belonged to Israel. They thought they would be justified because they were descendants of Abraham. They had circumcision, Sabbath, separation from the Gentiles, clean and unclean foods, and the like to show that they were the people of God. They are Israel and the blessings and promises were to come to all of them. But Paul tells them to wait just a minute. Not all who are Israelites by blood are the true Israel, the people of God. Paul says that the Jews were in error for thinking that God’s promises applied to the whole of physical Israel. This is not the first time Paul has said something like this. But this is the first time that he has said it quite like this. Notice where Paul already mentioned this truth in passing.
For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. (Romans 2:28-29; ESV)


Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. (Romans 4:9–12; ESV)


Notice that Paul was saying the same thing earlier in Romans. Not all who are physically circumcised are the people of God, the true Israel. In fact, those who are not circumcised can be recipients of the promises and those who are circumcised can miss out on the promises. The prophets had spoken of a remnant of Israel. It had become obvious that the nation as a whole was not responding to God’s leading. It was a smaller group within the nation of Israel that was really God’s people. Therefore, it was foolish to think that since the whole nation had not entered the blessing that the promise of God had failed. Romans 9:6 is a very important text to understanding the fulfillment of the promises found in the first covenant. Most scholars and churches teach that the promises that we read about in the prophets have not been fulfilled. Therefore, Israel must be a political nation to inherit God’s promises. Paul’s words here defeat such a thought. God’s promises were not to physical Israel, but to true Israel. The rest of Romans 9 is to prove this point to be true.

Proof #1: Abraham’s children. The first proof used by Paul is the children of Abraham. Paul points out that Abraham had other children (like Ishmael and the many children with Keturah), but the promises would only come through Isaac. God’s promises were not to all of Abraham’s children. Being descendants of Abraham does not make them children of promise. I think the NLT does a good job here: This means that Abraham’s physical descendants are not necessarily children of God. Only the children of the promise are considered to be Abraham’s children (9:8: NLT). You are not children of promise just because you are descendants of Abraham. Being Jews does not mean you are people of God.
It is useful to observe that the contrast is between being children of promise and children of the flesh. Paul makes the same distinction in Galatians 4 and is worth reading for yourselves to grasp the point Paul is making. Recall that when Paul speaks about something “in the flesh” it has been a reference to the works of the Law (circumcision, Sabbath, defilement laws, clean and unclean foods, etc). I believe the other point Paul is making is that keeping the works of the Law does not make one children of promise. You may be children of the flesh (by blood and by works of the Law), but neither make you the children of promise.

Proof #2: Isaac’s children. Paul goes further to use the example of Isaac’s children, Jacob and Esau. Jacob and Esau were both children of Isaac, but only one of the two would receive the promises of God. Even within Isaac there is a distinguishing that must occur. Even within Isaac there has been a winnowing process. The point is that this winnowing process has been in effect since the inception of Israel.
So how did God choose between Jacob and Esau? It was not by human works. God did not select Jacob to be the nation through the promise based upon Jacob’s works. Israel did not merit its selection. It was not by works of the Law or by any action that Israel was selected. God elected Israel of his own plans and purposes. This was God’s doing. This was God’s choice, even before the children were born. Humans could not thwart God’s purpose. God would use Jacob (Israel), not Esau, as his nation

Now here is where some make a big mistake. Some take this passage to mean that God chooses which individuals will be the elect (saved) and which will not be the elect (condemned). This greatly misses the point that Paul is making. It is important to see the context and the text to defeat this false teaching. First, the context has not been about individuals but about the nation of Israel. Go back to Romans 9:6. Not all of Israel are truly Israel. Paul is explaining the destiny of the nation of Israel, not each individual. The context also reveals this as Paul is in great anguish over the nation (9:2-3), not for each individual. Second, the text also reveals that Paul is talking about the nation, not individuals. Look at the quotation in verse 12, “The older will serve the younger.” However, Esau never served Jacob. Instead, Esau was trying to kill Jacob for most of his life. Esau and Jacob are not being referred to as individuals, but as the nations that came from them. Esau’s descendants were the Edomites and Jacob’s descendants were the Israelites. Edom served Israel. Edom did not have power, but Israel did have power over Edom and the surrounding nations.

 

Therefore the text and the context reveals that Paul is talking about Israel as a nation. When we understand this, then we do see God’s electing purposes. God selected Israel to be the nation before Jacob was born. God chose Israel. We could even use the Calvinistic term, unconditional election. God chose Israel to be his people without any works or acts on Jacob’s part. The choice was made before Jacob was even born. Thus, verse 13 concludes the thought: God chose Israel, but rejected Edom.

 

Is God Unjust (9:14-18)

Is there an injustice on God’s part to select one people to be his chosen nation and not another? Is God unfair to elect Jacob to be the one through whom the covenant blessings would come, and not Esau? Notice Paul’s answer to this question. Verse 15 quotes Exodus 33:19, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” This does not seem to answer the question, but press the problem deeper. How can God have mercy on whom he desires to have mercy? Isn’t this an injustice on God’s part?


We need to understand the context in which these words were original stated. Exodus 32 is the incident of the golden calf. Moses is angry and breaks the tablets of stone. God is angry that he says he will not go with the people to the promised land because if he did, he would consume them. Moses goes into the tent of meeting and intercedes on behalf of Israel. Moses says that if God does not go, then he will not go either. If God is not going to go, then there is no point for anyone going. At this moment Moses asks the Lord to reveal his glory. The Lord says that no human can see the full face and glory of the Lord and live. However, God says he will make his goodness pass before Moses. Then God says these words, “And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.”


God, rather than consuming the nation in his anger, would spare the sinful nation. God’s mercy came in spite of our human will and human exertion to rebel against him. The point is that God is free and does not have to show mercy at all! No one deserves mercy. No one works for God’s mercy! Is God unjust? Not at all because everyone deserve God’s wrath. We are crazy to ask for justice from God! We are losing our mind when we want to demand that God is being unjust. God is acting in mercy not to snuff out our lives. In this context of Paul’s point to the Christians in Rome, God is acting in mercy to choose his people (true Israel), not unjust. The stunning thing for Paul was not that God rejected Ishmael or Esau, but that God chose Isaac and Jacob, for they did not deserve to be included in God’s merciful and gracious purposes. Human effort leaves us in condemnation. We cannot clear ourselves of sin. God shows mercy because God chooses to do so, not because of us.


This is the point Paul is making with Pharaoh. Again, just as Jacob and Esau represent their corresponding nations, so Pharaoh represents Egypt. Egypt as a nation deserved judgment and wrath for its oppression and rebellion. But God spared the Pharaoh and the nation up to a particular point in history so that God’s glory could be revealed. God in his mercy spared Egypt to bring about his own purposes.

The parallel to Israel is strong. God kept the nation of Israel intact and showed mercy toward it, not because of the human effort or will of the people, but because God chose Israel to be the vehicle to reveal his glory.


The point is powerful. The Jews thought that they were privileged and deserved justification because they were Israel. Is it unjust that not all Israel is the true Israel? Is it unjust that the conditions to belong in the family of God is more than simply the works of the Law or being Jew? Absolutely not. Who can complain at God’s conditions for mercy in who will be his people? No one can question God’s purposes because all of us deserve wrath, not mercy.

Conclusion:

What a merciful God we have who decided in advance that he would have a people who would receive mercy rather than condemnation! The people who are recipients of this mercy are not those who are physical descendants of Abraham. The people who are recipients of this mercy are those who are spiritual descendants of Abraham. Paul has described who are spiritual descendants of Abraham: Circumcised in the heart (2:28-29), walk in the footsteps of faith of Abraham (4:12), joined with Christ in baptism (6:4), dead to sin and alive to God (6:11), slaves of righteousness (6:18), live according to the Spirit (8:5), Christ lives in us (8:10), and conformed to the image of his Son (8:29).

Categories
Posts

Respect For the Silence of the scriptures

Both the OT and NT show us that the silence of the scriptures have been reverenced throughout the ages

In the Old Testament

Cain and Abel present the first case for consideration. We are told that Cain’s sacrifice was rejected, while Abel’s was accepted. We are not privy to what God told them, but we know he did reveal his will. Hebrews 11:4 informs us, “By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain.” Since “faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ,” (Romans 10:17), we know that God did give instructions. (That’s what is called a “necessary implication,” another way by which we can ascertain God’s will for us.)

We know God revealed his will to both brothers. We do not know that he listed all kinds of sacrifices that would not be acceptable. If God had to deal with us in that manner, then the Bible would be so big we would need a wheelbarrow to carry it around with us.

 

The same reasoning applies to God’s word to Moses concerning a certain sacrifice. “This is the statute of the law which Jehovah has commanded, saying, ‘Speak to the sons of Israel that they bring you an unblemished red heifer in which is no defect and on which a yoke has never been placed’” (Numbers 19:2). Where, in all of the Bible, is Moses told not to offer an ant, a bedbug, a horse or a zebra? How many different species of animal life live on the earth? The point is clear. God spoke about what he wanted, but did not need to specify everything he did not want. Man’s nature is such that Moses might have searched the earth over to see if he could find one animal God did not name in his list of “do nots.”

 

Consider Noah and the ark which he built in preparation for the flood. “Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood …” (Genesis 6:14). I don’t know how many different varieties of trees there were on the earth at that time, but I suspect there were several. Notice that God did not say, “gopher wood,” and then go on to say, “But do not use apple tree wood, birch, cottonwood, dogwood, elm, fir, hickory,” ad infinitum. If Mrs. Noah had insisted on paneling the master bedroom with golden oak, could Noah have reasoned that since God was silent about golden oak, it would be OK to use it? You know the answer.

 

“If Noah had used one plank of any other wood, the ark would have sunk like a rock.” Afterwards, a good sister challenged him. He insisted that Noah’s disobedience would have sunk the ark. She responded, “No, it never would have floated in the first place.” Point well taken!

 

The sad fate of Nadab and Abihu is another good example of respecting the silence of the Scriptures. God had instructed about fire, incense and offerings. “He shall take a firepan full of coals of fire from upon the altar before Jehovah and two handfuls of finely ground sweet incense, and bring it inside the veil” (Leviticus 16:12). The story of these sons of Aaron is related in Leviticus 10:1-2: “Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before Jehovah, which He had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of Jehovah and consumed them, and they died before Jehovah.”

The operative phrase in the story is “which He had not commanded them.” Evidently God had been silent about the source of the fire they used. He had specified which fire he wanted, but was silent about fire from any other source. What do you suppose these brothers reasoned as they secured their fire? Were they thinking, “Well, if we use this fire, we are going to be roasted alive”? I doubt it. They must have thought, “One fire is as good as another. They all burn. And it is more convenient to use this fire than the one the Lord specified.” The NIV says, “They offered unauthorized fire before the Lord” (emphasis added—jdt). The RSV says it was “unholy” fire.

The tabernacle (later the temple) was the repository of the sacred Ark of the Covenant. When it was moved when Israel traveled, those to carry it were specified. “At that time Jehovah set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the covenant of Jehovah, …” (Deuteronomy 10:8). Furthermore, even the mode of transport was given. “You shall cast four gold rings for it and fasten them on its four feet, and two rings shall be on one side of it and two rings on the other side of it. You shall make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. You shall put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark, to carry the ark with them” (Exodus 25:12-14). There is no reference to things being forbidden concerning these two matters.

 

The ark had been captured by the Philistines, and was now being returned to its rightful resting place in Jerusalem. David gave command concerning its transport. “Now David again gathered all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. And David arose and went with all the people who were with him to Baale-judah, to bring up from there the ark of God which is called by the Name, the very name of the LORD of hosts who is enthroned above the cherubim. They placed the ark of God on a new cart that they might bring it from the house of Abinadab which was on the hill; and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, were leading the new cart” (II Samuel 6:1-3).

 

This method of transport seemed sensible. They had considerable distance to cover, and how much more convenient and modern to place it on an ox-cart rather than having men bear this burden on their shoulders. What harm could come from this? After all, they were helping with God’s work and wishes — to return the ark to its rightful place. Is this not the argument that is made many times when some practice is called into question? “We are doing a good work.” But good in the eyes of whom? Man or God?

 

But we know harm did come. “They placed the ark of God on a new cart that they might bring it from the house of Abinadab which was on the hill; and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, were leading the new cart. So they brought it with the ark of God from the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill; and Ahio was walking ahead of the ark. Meanwhile, David and all the house of Israel were celebrating before the LORD with all kinds of instruments made of fir wood, and with lyres, harps, tambourines, castanets and cymbals. But when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out toward the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen nearly upset it. And the anger of the LORD burned against Uzzah, and God struck him down there for his irreverence; and he died there by the ark of God” (II Samuel 6:3-7).

 

Why did Uzzah die? Wasn’t he trying to help? Wasn’t he doing “a good work?” But good in whose eyes—God’s or men’s? He died for violating a clear prohibition. “When Aaron and his sons have finished covering the holy objects and all the furnishings of the sanctuary, when the camp is to set out, after that the sons of Kohath shall come to carry them, so that they will not touch the holy objects and die” (Numbers 4:15). The holy things were not to be touched, under penalty of death.

 

David realized the sin that had been committed that brought about the untimely death of this sincere man, who was only trying to be helpful. He spoke to the Levites, and said: “Because you did not carry it at the first, Jehovah our God made an outburst on us, for we did not seek Him according to the ordinance” (I Chronicles 15:13). David said they had not considered what God had said, but evidently assumed “silence gave consent.”

 

The priesthood was an important part of Israel’s relationship with God. Priests were to come from the tribe of Levi. “You shall thus give the Levites to Aaron and to his sons; they are wholly given to him from among the sons of Israel. So you shall appoint Aaron and his sons that they may keep their priesthood …” (Numbers 3:9-10). Thus genealogical records were scrupulously kept.

 

When the Jews returned from Babylonian captivity, they were setting things in order and reestablishing the priesthood. There arose a problem with certain ones who could not prove their ancestry. “Of the priests: the sons of Hobaiah, the sons of Hakkoz, the sons of Barzillai, who took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai, the Gileadite, and was named after them. These searched among their ancestral registration, but it could not be located; therefore they were considered unclean and excluded from the priesthood” (Nehemiah 7:63-64). What was the problem? The records were “silent” about these men, therefore they were not authorized to serve. Silence did not give consent.

In the New Testament

“Going beyond” was something on Paul’s mind when he wrote to the church at Corinth. “Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other” (I Corinthians 4:6). The ASV says they were “not to go beyond …” Paul referred to himself and Apollos as ones authorized to speak with authority. To “go beyond” is to enter the realm of silence, which was not to be done.

 

Colossians has Paul’s warning against certain practices that were not acceptable. “If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, ‘Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!’ (which all refer to things destined to perish with use) –in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence” (Colossians 2:20-23).

 

How should we define this “self-made religion” (NASV) or “will-worship” (ASV)? Paul says these things have “the appearance of wisdom … but are of no value …” Many practices in the worship of denominations are justified because they are entertaining and draw large crowds. Some of the popular preachers are described as “Dr. Phil in the pulpit,” referring to their practice of taking a verse of scripture and delivering a “feel good” sermon.

 

“Going beyond” is also mentioned in II John 9: “Whosoever goes onward and abides not in the teaching of Christ, has not God: he that abides in the teaching, the same has both the Father and the Son.” There has been much speculation about whether “the teaching of Christ” involves just the teaching about Christ, or the teaching that Christ did. But in the end it makes no difference. It would be absurd to claim we must adhere to the teaching about Christ, but then do not have to abide within the boundaries of what Christ taught.

 

“The priesthood and superiority of Christ” is a much-discussed topic in Hebrews. The letter opens with Christ’s superior position over the angels. “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee? and again, I will be to him a Father, And he shall be to me a Son?” (Hebrews 1:5). Why could angels not be considered as equal to the Son? Because God was silent about the matter, and so should we be silent, and not ascribe to angels an equality with the Son.

 

If all the foregoing reasoning is not convincing concerning the fact that silence does not give consent, please consider carefully the matter of the priesthood of Christ. “For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests” (Hebrews 7:13-14). Then in Hebrews 8:4, this statement is made: “Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law.”

 

Why did the Law have to be changed? Why could Christ not be a priest under the Old Testament? Because Moses “spoke nothing” about those from the tribe ofJudah serving as priests. In other words, the law was “SILENT” about this matter. Question: If “silence gives consent,” then why could not one from Judah be a priest? Nowhere does the Old Testament forbid one from Dan, Simeon or Judah from the priesthood.

 

 

Those favoring “silence gives consent” to allow instrumental music counter that God was not “silent” about Noah’s wood, Moses’ sacrifice or Nadab and Abihu’s fire, because God “specified” what he wanted. Agreed! But then they want to use instrumental music in worship because God is “silent” about instruments. Wait a minute. God did specify about music! He said “sing.” Surely the legs of the lame are unequal. (Cf. Colossians 3:16; Ephesians 5:19, etc.) An examination of the history of the early church will confirm that no instruments were used in worship for over 600 years.

Conclusion

If we apply the concept that “silence gives consent,” then what rule would apply when someone wants to borrow my bicycle? I authorize that, and then find the borrower has taken my car instead. When questioned by the police and charged with theft, his plea is, “But he didn’t say not to take the car. I found it suited my needs better to use the car, and since he was silent about it, I saw no reason not to take it.”

How far do you think that argument would get in a court of law? Not very far! And how far will that reasoning get in the Court of the Last Day — Judgment Day? I don’t want to risk it, and I trust that what has been written will encourage us to remain within the guidelines given in the revelation written by the inspired apostles and prophets. The only way we can do that is to respect the silence of the Scriptures.

Categories
Posts

Instrumental music in the praises of God

By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name,” (Heb 13:15). God created humanity with the ability to use voices to sing praises to Him. The clapping of hands, guitars, etc is not the fruit of the Lips

“Why do churches of Christ not use musical instruments in worship?” is that the churches in the New Testament never used musical instruments when they worshiped in song. Christ, his apostles, and prophets only commanded singing for worship in the New Testament.[1] This is why the churches of Christ maintain singing only. Christ, his apostles, and his prophets instructed singing for the church to make melody together by teaching one another and thanking God. Why did the first churches not use musical instruments to worship God?

Jesus and True Worship

As most Christians realize, worship changed from physical to spiritual. Jesus revealed that worship is now in spirit and truth, and no longer in Jerusalem. David brought the old temple worship to Jerusalem and enhanced this worship with musical instruments. Jesus professed, “the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. […] But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him” (John 4:21–24). The churches of Christ see that Jesus set true worship apart from the worship that David established in Jerusalem.[2] True worship is with the right spirit and by the Truth of God’s Word (cf. John 1:17; 17:17).

The Change to True Worship

Jesus taught that God seeks true worshipers, and Jesus revealed that true worship is in spirit and truth (John 4:23–24). For that reason, Jesus distinguished true worship apart from temple worship in Jerusalem (John 4:21–24). The Temple of God changed from that physical edifice to the spiritual church (1 Cor 3:16; Eph 2:21), and worship also changed from physical symbolism to the spiritual reality (1 Pet 2:5). Christ became the atoning sacrifice for sin (Heb 9:22–26). All Christians are now the priests of God’s spiritual Temple, the church. Christians are the ones who God blessed to make melody in the heart and upon the lips. Thereby, true worshipers offer spiritual offerings of praise unto God (Heb 13:15; 1 Pet 2:5). The priesthood of Levites and their physical worship with David’s instruments have ceased (Heb 7:12).

Shadows of True Worship

Old Testament worship foreshadowed and symbolized true worship, and the substance has always been Christ (Col 2:16–17; Heb 8:5; 10:1). Christ fulfilled the Law of the Old Testament, so that Christ has led believers to true worship (Heb 9:9–10; 1 Pet 2:5). Revelation’s symbolic references to Old Testament worship with incense, an altar, sacrifices, and harps are all symbols in Revelation. These physical symbols foreshadow true worship in the New Testament. Incense symbolized prayer and the harps symbolized praise (Rev 5:8–14). Harps are never played in Revelation. However, John described the praises of the faithful sounding like thunders, many waters, and harps (Rev 14:1–3; 15:1–3). The New Testament describes the ordinances of Old Testament worship as obsolete, carnal, and fleshly (Rom 7:1–7; Gal 3–5; 2 Cor 3:7–18; Eph 2:14–22; Heb 8:13). This is why the churches of Christ believe in observing all of Christ’s commands — unaltered, because Christ’s words are perfect and greater than the Law of Moses (Matt 28:18–20).

The churches of Christ refrain from musical instruments in worship because these are contrary to the Spirit of the New Covenant (cf. 2 Cor 3:1–6). If God wanted Christians to worship with instruments in the music of the church, God would have commanded instruments in addition to singing for Christians to use. However, the New Testament specifies that Christians praise God in song with their hearts and lips (Eph 5:19; Heb 13:15).

Changing the Substance of Worship

Jesus’s word are perfect, and no one should add or annul his teachings about worship. Do Christians not have any liberty to express worship in any different way from true worship in the New Testament? God specified the true worship that is best for believers. Christians can no more change the music that Christ commanded than change the elements of the Lord’s Supper (Matt 26:26–29; 1 Cor 11:17–34). Christ specified “the fruit of the grapevine” for the Lord’s Supper, and His Spirit specified “the fruit of the lips” for praise (Heb 13:15). The church of Jesus Christ can no more change “the fruit of the grapevine” in the Lord’s Supper than change “the fruit of the lips” in praise to God (Matt 26:29). Christians cannot change anything that Jesus commanded regarding marriage, baptism, and church elders. Christians cannot change Christ and alter the Gospel. Christ is infallible and so are His words (Heb 4:14–15; 1 Pet 2:22). Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8). Therefore, no one can change Jesus’s words.

Jesus declared about the Lord’s Supper, “Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the grapevine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (Mark 14:25). The cup of the Lord’s Supper is “the fruit of the grapevine.” Who can change “the fruit of the grapevine” into anything else? Who can add anything to the Lord’s Supper that Christ established? Likewise, who can change Christ’s music and Christian praise? The apostolic writer expressed in Hebrews 13:15, “Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.” As New Testament Christians, the churches of Christ see the blessings of praising God only by lips, and Christians plead with all to reconsider the simple beauty of speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.

Vocal Worship

Words are the most important part of singing to worship. Christ’s music is vocal and verbal for the church, and singing in worship is the most beautiful, pure, and sublime form of music. The apostolic Scriptures describe musical instruments as “lifeless” and “without soul” (1 Cor 14:7). Lifeless instruments are very much in contrast to one being filled with the Spirit. However, the apostle Paul exhorted, “be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Eph 5:18–19). The Scriptures depict meaningful and spiritual worship where Christians gather together singing to God and to one another without relying on a select group to enhance any display of worship. Worship in spirit and truth is God-enhanced worship (John 4:23–24).

Meaningful Praise

First Corinthians 14 explains that verbal worship edifies worshipers in the assembly. In 1 Corinthians 14:15, Christ’s Spirit uses the Greek word psallo to describe how making melody with the spirit and the mind requires words. Meaningful music in worship relies upon understandable words (1 Cor 14:7–19). Furthermore, Christians complete the act of psallo by making melody in the heart (Eph 5:19). Music consisting of anything other than verbal singing is an addition to God’s Word and contrary to the heart of meaningful worship.

By seeking to worship in spirit and truth, Christians can find that singing is the only form and the highest form of musical worship in the New Testament. Speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs is a God-given way for Christians to teach and admonish one another (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16). Therefore, thousands of churches follow the Scriptures to merely sing and yet avoid foot-stomping, hand-clapping, and musical instruments as additions to Christ’s words. These additions are nit useful for meaningful worship to God. Worship invented by people apart from God’s Word can only hinder Christians from drawing near to God.

Historical Worship

The word acapella means “of the chapel” in Latin and comes from the ancient form of Christian praise when apostolic churches worshiped by singing without instrumental music. For fourteen centuries following Christ, almost all churches sang and opposed the use of musical instruments. During the Reformation, the reformers led the churches in France and England to remove the recent additions of musical instruments added by the Roman Catholic church in the fifteenth century.[3] This effort to reform Christian worship continued through the nineteenth century among many of these churches. Throughout these times, “nonconformist” churches found that true worship is free of the innovations and amusements of society. In the Restoration, the restorers made the same stand for true worship and still do.1

The Perfection of True Worship

True worshipers find that Christ is perfect and complete, and so are His words (John 6:63; Heb 4:15; 1 Pet 2:22). Adding to the words of Christ and His Spirit is wrong (Gal 1:6–9; 3:15; 1 Cor 4:6; 2 John 9; Rev 22:18–19). When believers consider the complete perfection of Christ’s words, then Christ’s institutions of the Lord’s Supper, baptism, prayer, music, and the like are complete in presenting His ideals. Few people would consider adding lamb’s meat to the Lord’s Supper even for the purpose of presenting Jesus as the Passover Lamb. Few would consider adding incense to prayers and ashes to the waters of baptism, since such additions are contrary to Jesus’s infallibility. A true worshiper will not add to true worship.

Because God specified only singing in the New Testament Scriptures, alterations are contrary to the heart of meaningful worship. For Christ’s Spirit teaches that every Scripture is God’s breath to make the person of God complete and fully equipped unto every good work (2 Tim 3:16–17). Christians are not lacking any good work in the Scriptures. True worshipers listen to Christ’s Spirit through the Scriptures, and by loving Christ, they see the complete purity of singing over all other musical forms. This is why the churches of Christ do not use musical instruments.1

God Judges Hearts

True worshipers will not add or annul from true worship. As far as true worship being a matter of salvation, God judges the hearts of those who worship for whether they love God and keep His commands (John 14:21–24). Some Christians in ancient Corinth were condemned for not discerning the Lord’s Supper, and yet some also misused the gifts of tongues and there is no mention of condemnation (1 Cor 11:17–34; 14). This writer must defer for God to judge on these matters, and yet he warns all to worship as God has revealed in the Scriptures.

Churches for True Worship

The churches of Christ do not use musical instruments for worship to God, because Christ commanded singing for worship in the New Testament and the New Testament churches sang and never used instruments. The words of Jesus compel churches of Christ to maintain the purity of true worship. Neither Christ, his apostles, nor his prophets used or commanded musical instruments for worshiping God. The New Testament writers affirm that singing is the most edifying, meaningful, and spiritual form of music. Because the New Testament commands verbal music for praise and spiritual teaching, the church of Christ will not use musical instruments while singing in worship (1 Cor 14:9–19).

Understanding Hearts

May God bless us all to sincerely consider the music that God desires for believers to worship in spirit and truth. To understand true worship, a believer must think spiritually and not carnally (1 Cor 2:14). A person must also have an honest and good heart who does not dismiss Christ’s teachings (Luke 8:15). Therefore, a believer needs to be saved through the Gospel (1 Cor 15:1–5). God saves believers who have risen with Christ from burial in baptism (Rom 6:4; Col 2:12). The believer must die with Christ to one’s sins to rise with Christ from baptism (Rom 6:1–7; Col 2:12–13). In this way, the Scriptures teach that God saves believers by grace raising them alive in Jesus Christ (Eph 2:4–7).